Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Took Advice From Media Outlets

formfeed writes "According to the AP (through Google News), WikiLeaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material' are they releasing it themselves. These newspapers 'have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents.' AP questions whether WikiLeaks will follow these redactions, but nevertheless seems quite impressed by this 'extraordinary collaboration between some of the world's most respected media outlets and the WikiLeaks organization.'" I wonder if some of the anti-WikiLeaks fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources. Update: 12/05 17:42 GMT by T : Yes, that's WikiLeaks, rather than (as originally rendered) WikiPedia. HT to reader Mike Hearn.

16 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Fix the summary by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

    Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Fix the summary by VShael · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well that's just brilliant. After two weeks of cable releases from Wikileaks, the rest of the world can look forward with confidence to the US invasion of Wikipedia.

  2. I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by superdude72 · · Score: 5, Informative

    What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

    No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

    1. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing. That's what makes it so scary. This is a fundamental assault on the very concept of a free press - and I am quite scared of the amount of people wanting to see Assange's head on a pole here. Those people are the enablers of totalitarianism.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by fishexe · · Score: 5, Informative

      What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

      They provide a secure anonymous drop-box so that people can leak to them without leaving a trail by which to get caught. (It's important to note that Bradley Manning got caught because he went around bragging to others about leaking; WikiLeaks didn't blow his cover, he did that himself)

      No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else.

      They don't leak, but they do facilitate leaks. By providing the secure setup they presumably encourage leaks that would not otherwise occur, and distribute material that might be containable by the authorities if the leakers had gone to a more traditional outlet.

      So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

      Simply put, the attacks aren't justified, but people in the press and government are self-righteous assholes.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    3. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Informative

      >What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

      Nothing, but the hypocritical unprincipled politicians* who are calling for Assange's head feel they can attack Wikileaks because it doesn't look like regular, 4th estate media, and they think this means they can avoid charges of attacking the free press. Because Wikileaks is a little bit different.

      They can't, but they think they can, particularly when trying to dupe the least informed members of our societies to rouse support for their attacks.

      *example of lack of principles and lack of adherence to the rule of law (that's just for us little folks) from The Guardian, today:

      "Lawyers representing the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, say that they have been surveilled by members of the security services and have accused the US state department of behaving "inappropriately" by failing to respect attorney-client protocol.

      Jennifer Robinson and Mark Stephens of the law firm Finers Stephens Innocent told the Guardian they had been watched by people parked outside their houses for the past week.

      [...] a letter from a state department legal adviser – addressed to both Assange and [Robinson] – which appeared to bracket together client and lawyer as if to suggest that WikiLeaks and its lawyers were one and the same.

      The letter, which was released to the press, begins: "Dear Ms Robinson and Mr Assange. I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to US Ambassador Louis B Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified US government documents."

      Robinson said: "By eliding client and lawyer, that was a very inappropriate attempt to implicate me. That is really inappropriate to come from the state department of all places; they understand very well the rules on attorney-client protocol."

      It's quite a serious situation," she said, adding that, according to the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments should ensure that lawyers "are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference" and that "lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions".

      [...]

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/julian-assange-lawyers-being-watched

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why the flaming fuck should any agent of the free press care if the US government tells it "numerous times" not to publish something? Not giving a fuck about that is the very definition of free press.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    5. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thats utter nonsense. When has any other major media organization ever received classified information that it decided to reveal even after being told numerous times by the us government to not post it?e?

      Guess you didn't bother to research that claim.

      Pentagon Papers was the first thing that came to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers. Watergate was the second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal. Plenty others exist if you want more examples.

      --
      This signature was left intentionally blank.
    6. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here we go again. Freedom of press is fine as long as the government likes it. Thanks for making that clear. Stalin is proud of you. Oh, and btw - no one is keeping a cache of documents for the purpose of blackmail, but for the purpose of their own security. Which is unfortunately necessary as long as the likes of you are around. And spare me the character assassination stuff. You s

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    7. Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... by fluffy99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

      No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

      That's the ironic part. Wikileaks is outside the US and its laws, but NYT is inside the US and can be prosecuted under existing US laws. That the US govt is purusing Julian and not NYT is indeed hypocritical.

  3. Go, tailgunner Joe! by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go ahead and pressure Network Solutions to pull nytimes.com. See how well that works.

  4. Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course the US government declined to assist. "Hi, we just got a whole bunch of classified documents you'd rather us not have, and we'd like to publish them. Want to help us redact them?" Any answer the government gives other than "publish nothing" is basically approving Wikileaks publishing leaked documents.

  5. Traditional media is under control by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USG has nothing to fear from the NYT or any other news source. They are always interested in keeping access to government officials, so they never step over the line when reporting the news. They don't report on the reality of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Editors at the major media companies are good friends with everyone in Washington and Wall Street, so you can't get good coverage there either.

    Even looking at coverage of WikiLeaks, how many are reporting that the US State Department new immediately that the coup in Honduras was illegal, and then publicly stated a month later that they hadn't decided what had happened? How many are reporting that Hillary Clinton knew Saudi Arabia was the main funding source for the worst extremist groups in the world, but did not publicly reveal this to US Citizens for fear of damaging trade relations with the oil barons?

    You would think that would even be front page news on Fox, who'd bread is buttered by fear mongering about muslim terrorists, but it's always below the fold, or on some opinion column that never sees the front page. That's because one of their main investors is a Saudi Prince.

    A truly independent press is too dangerous for the United States to tolerate. It's told too many lies to too many people for too long. They know WikiLeaks has zero self-interest in American interests, and that's why the organization is so feared.

    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -George Orwell

  6. Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest by ushering05401 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's the point. The answer 'publish nothing' is not recognized data-war tender. The U.S. is clearly hoping for meat space developments to solve this situation.

    Otherwise they would have a strategy that involved dealing with the data on the table.

    The Egyptians have apparently been saying this for years. The U.S. will enter into new theaters of combat with no concern for the opinion of established actors in the arena. Instead they listen with half an ear, then return to telling the established actors what the U.S. wants them to do.

    The net result here is that WikiLeaks gets to start doling out National Security level assignments and drawing up the game plan. Currently Assange is only a few pieces short of being able support a cabinet, storm Sealand, and demand U.N. recognition of sovereignty. All because we are forcing his organization to grow up into a full fledged Intel agency and polarizing other sovereigns into his camp.

    If anyone is worried about a stateless future ruled by paramilitary actors start taking notes. The U.S. government appears to be hellbent on making that future a reality.

  7. Re:Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now you see how ruthless the [bully] is because their attention is directed toward you. The way to deal with [bullies] is to always stay on their good side. The less attention they have on you generally the better off you are. When you associate with certain networks of people they don't like, even if you just donate a dollar, you'll be put on the radar and it's impossible to get off once you get put on it.

    My, aren't you the submissive little bitch... stand up for your rights. There is more of us than there are of them, if we stick to our principles and refuse to give up, we get to keep our freedoms. If you kneel down, you'll get whipped.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  8. The US Media is broken by bussdriver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US Media is useless and most people I've heard are quite misinformed about Wikileaks. This is NOT news, WikiLeaks has been working with major news outlets (mostly not in USA) for a while now. Back when the politicians were claiming lives lost and the huge evil of the war log leaks the Media didn't report that WikiLeaks was also working with news partners and the NYTimes was working on it with the Gov to make the leaks "responsible." Sure, mistakes were still made - it was not the big deal like it was blown into. The US Media doesn't think or work for a living, they just repeat what the Gov or talking heads or AstroTurf group says and hardly even moderates between those.

    I'm all for redundant news about how WikiLeaks isn't the only one involved.

    Notice how WikiLeaks is being targeted so much stronger now when instead of WAR information? This had to be the last straw, can't let average to stupid people think badly of our 'diplomacy'! Forget the losing of two wars and the MILLION+ dead people you can't give away our diplomatic policies! I don't think most people would be surprised if they leaked that Iraq was ONLY for oil but WikiLeaks would get bombed and Bush still wouldn't be within eyesight of protesters let alone prosecuted.